Aslani v. McCarthy
MEMORANDUM Order: For the reasons stated in this memorandum order, the sole remaining defendant Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois is granted leave to file an Amended Answer on or before August 24, 2017. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 8/10/2017:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, AMY
TRUELOVE, KATHLEEN KASHIMA,
and TIMOTHY MURPHY,
Case No. 16 C 10476
Counsel for the sole remaining defendant, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois
(designated by counsel as the "University"), have filed the University's Answer (Dkt. No. 49)
and Affirmative Defenses (Dkt. No. 50) to the Amended Complaint brought by Maryam Aslani
("Aslani"). Although this Court has not sought to be exhaustive in addressing those responsive
pleadings, more than one aspect of counsel's filings indicates that counsel would do well to read
and to give consideration to the several aspects of the App'x to State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
Riley, 199 F.R.D. 276 (N.D. Ill. 2001).
For one thing, there is no justification for counsel's departure from the straightforward
disclaimer prescribed by Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 8(b)(5). Accordingly Answer ¶¶ 1, 16, 17, 18,
20, 21 and 27 are stricken, but with leave granted to file an Amended Answer correcting that
repeated flaw on or before August 24, 2017.
In addition, Answer ¶¶ 40 and 41 inappropriately fail to respond to the corresponding
allegations in the Amended Complaint because each of those allegations "merely states a legal
conclusion." That is an impermissible basis for a nonresponse, so that the offending paragraphs
are also stricken, and the error should be corrected in the Amended Answer.
Finally, both aspects of the University's Affirmative Defenses are problematic. Here are
the errors that must also be corrected by the same date:
In the First Affirmative Defense the University sets out a reason that does
not comply with the principle underlying Rule 8(c) and the caselaw
applying that Rule, for the University's assertion there is at odds with
Amended Complaint ¶ 42.
As for the Second Affirmative Defense, which asserts an Eleventh
Amendment bar to any claim for monetary damage against the University,
it is unclear whether counsel's position is that the assertion would bar
Aslani from obtaining relief under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681. That
should be cleared up in any rewrite of the Affirmative Defenses.
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: August 10, 2017
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?